Most states that have passed constitutional amendments protecting hunting and fishing rights have done so without much controversy or political fighting. But in Arizona, eh, not so much…

From this story about Prop. 109 in the Arizona Daily Star:
_A referendum making hunting and fishing constitutional rights in Arizona is being pushed by sportsmen’s groups as a way to make it harder to ban hunting at the polls. Backers of Proposition 109 say they’re trying to stop “wildlife management by ballot box,” which they say appeals to emotions. They say Proposition 109 will ensure laws governing hunting and fishing are designed with wildlife conservation in mind. They say they want wildlife managed according to science.

__But opponents are afraid Prop. 109 would tie voters’ hands and see it as a power grab by the Legislature and a threat to the Game and Fish Commission’s authority. They say this proposal puts politics ahead of science and could make it harder to regulate hunting even if science seems to call for it. Finally, they see proposal as unclear and having too much room for interpretation. The two sides disagree not only over the proposal’s merits, but over its meaning, down to individual words and clauses.